Viewpoint: 'Why most men should pay on first dates'

[Grimbold21]

Perfect, we have no disagreement on that simple fact then. Men earn more money than women.

My only point of contention is that this isn't a "scientific" fact. This isn't a science.

While he is firm on the refusal that the conceptual and practical distinction between a wage and earnings is important in this situation.

While he is perfectly aware but ignores the controversial charges associated with his "uncontroversial fact", which is why contenders of the wage gap draw this distinction.

[luc54]

I'm straight up starting to doubt you regularly leave your house.

"My anecdotal evidence is better than your anecdotal evidence." Yea your argument don't hold really well there. It's also kinda funny you go ad hominem others when people don't agree with your observation on this.

I mean surely you know about the data from okcupid where women rate 80% of men worse than average while men rate women relatively fairly. That seems pretty similar to what happens on the video. I have to admit mostly pretty subjective so looking at single persons ratings is pretty worthless.

[Mistame]

I mean you kind of covered your bases by denying the phenomenon existed, and then providing an explanation for the phenomenon in the same breath.

Nothing in my comment was contradictory. All your comment did was hand wave what doesn't fit your world view. As usual.

Reminder: my contention in this thread is that the gender pay gap exists.

Your "contention" is pedantry.

[Mormolyce]

Perfect, we have no disagreement on that simple fact then. Men earn more money than women.

My only point of contention is that this isn't a "scientific" fact. This isn't a science.

Scientists studied the wage gap, it's been the subject of numerous scientific papers, so yes this is a science. If you prefer I could more accurately describe it as an empirical fact.

While he is firm on the refusal that the conceptual and practical distinction between a wage and earnings is important in this situation.

You realise Spectral just agreed that the wage gap exists, right? So maybe you should try to convince him that it doesn't, since you think that.

- - - Updated - - -

Your "contention" is pedantry.

"The gender pay gap exists" vs. "the gender pay gap does not exist" is pedantry?

Funny.

- - - Updated - - -

"My anecdotal evidence is better than your anecdotal evidence." Yea your argument don't hold really well there. It's also kinda funny you go ad hominem others when people don't agree with your observation on this.

He made an anecdotal claim, so did I, the net result is nothing is proven. Kind of my point really.

But yes I do suspect he's either lying or has a warped perception of reality.

[Theodarzna]

But it's important to make these linguistic distinctions, particularly when the subject demands. Why do you reckon that so many contest the wage gap's existence (and do set aside the whole "those people are just a bunch of incel women hating douches" routine)?

That's not how it is. You have your base wage and your supplementary wages (which in turn are further subdivided into other things) which all grouped together to make up your Total Compensation.

You simply have to watch any interview with some figurehead endorsing the wage gap, and you'll see shallow analysis and remarks: the wage gap exist women are paid less than men
Hold on, they can't be paid less than men cause it's illegal. They may be paid less than men on account of the latter having earned more money, but that's taking into account everything they've been payed.

And you've just reflected and employed the same tactic that people do in the public sphere. It's like when they say There's a 10% wage gap in this country, which quite concerning. Embarrassing even, that we've come such a long way and women are still being payed less than men. That's one of the most dishonest fabrications you can make. They've just taken the entire statistical information of an entire labor force and used the quite obvious discrepancy you'll get to argue for the existence of the wage gap.

No, that's not how it works, and you'll only convince those who are already predisposed to accept that rationalization, which is what you did with your first graph, the 2nd there's no context to it, and the 3rd, at least, is about earnings as opposed to base wage.

I mean if we wish to get technical there is a pay gap between all sorts of things. Like, say someone who works part-time versus full time.

[Rennadrel]

Well, no, if you calculate in life choices (choice of profession, choice of labour time, choice of parental leave, choice of babies) then the "wage gap" goes down to about nothing.
It is illegal to pay less for different genders and if you have proof of this happening you can go to court, in every western country in the world. It is a myth, it is not scientific fact it's lazy cunts wanting more money for less work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWBXbGVyQU

I've heard department supervisors in my workplace say that they won't hire women for trades positions in the future because a couple of those are going on maternity leave for a year. The fact that you lose all of their productivity for a year can be detrimental to any business, and when our work outlook is going on 2-3 years from now, it's hard to account for increasing manpower when women get pregnant when you are looking that far ahead as a business. And they are guaranteed their jobs when they come back, and if work isn't as busy as anticipated, the people who get hired to replace the women on maternity leave get let go.

[Deleted]

haha on your arse if you think you can get away without splitting bill in 2018. and don't be ordering that flashy wine on a first date expecting me to drink a glass and pay for half.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean if we wish to get technical there is a pay gap between all sorts of things. Like, say someone who works part-time versus full time.

don't forget the pay gap between those born wealthy and those born poor.
and the pay gap between degrees from a good college and a no name one.
and the pay gap between people doing the same jobs in different country's.
hell theres a pay gap between what i get payed in the north of England and what toffs in the south get for the same work in the same country.

[Mistame]

"The gender pay gap exists" vs. "the gender pay gap does not exist" is pedantry?

Funny.

When people discuss a "gender wage gap", they're generally implying that women make less because they're women. When someone counters that by pointing out variances in hours worked, etc, and you argue to the effect of, "there's a gap, so it exists", ignoring the context of the conversation, you're being pedantic.

[Mormolyce]

When people discuss a "gender wage gap", they're generally implying that women make less because they're women. When someone counters that by pointing out variances in hours worked, etc, and you argue to the effect of, "there's a gap, so it exists", ignoring the context of the conversation, you're being pedantic.

Spectral has already conceded that the gap still exists when you account for hours worked, so you can scratch that one off.

- - - Updated - - -

don't forget the pay gap between those born wealthy and those born poor.

I really enjoy your satire account ahahaha.

[Celista]

Sure. Men work more, work valuable jobs, and are more valuable to firms. They earn more accordingly.

If someone says "wage gap" and means that women are unfairly discriminated against in employment, I think they're either lying or misinformed about the data. If they say "wage gap" and mean that men work more, work more valuable jobs, and are more valuable to firms than I agree wholly with the thesis.

If you have a study you'd like to share that controls for type of work, quantity of work, and measures productivity that finds a significant gap, I'm open to the evidence.

I'm sorry but that's BS. Teaching, nursing, social work, and child care are critical to society's function and are consistently monetarily undervalued.

https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/g...graduation.pdf I linked this on these forums awhile ago, before discussion of gender topics was banned (speaking of which, not sure why this thread is still open).

[Elim Garak]

I'm sorry but that's BS. Teaching, nursing, social work, and child care are critical to society's function and are consistently monetarily undervalued.

https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/g...graduation.pdf I linked this on these forums awhile ago, before discussion of gender topics was banned (speaking of which, not sure why this thread is still open).

That's a BS study aimed to find discrimination.
They don't account for the biologically based difference in skill and talent between the sexes. Men excel in male dominated fields. It doesn't matter if a man and a woman had the same grades in the uni, becuase for a woman that could've been the pinnacle of her performance, but for a man - just above average, he could do more, but it wasn't requried to get the top grades. So no wonder he will earn more in a year.

[Celista]

That's a BS study aimed to find discrimination.
They don't account for the biologically based difference in skill and talent between the sexes. Men excel in male dominated fields. It doesn't matter if a man and a woman had the same grades in the uni, becuase for a woman that could've been the pinnacle of her performance, but for a man - just above average, he could do more, but it wasn't requried to get the top grades. So no wonder he will earn more in a year.

The study is adjusted for degree, major, field and hours worked. Claiming BS doesn't make it true.

[Elim Garak]

The study is adjusted for degree, major, field and hours worked. Claiming BS doesn't make it true.

I stated quite clearly what it is NOT adjusted for. Didn't I?
I stated that if you have a goal to find discrimination - you will

You know what's the good part of this study? It's no longer 23 cents, just 7 now. I'll wait until the complete admittance (from AAUW) that there's no discrimination. They clearly need to do more studies. It helps! Now they need to ponder what part does the biology play in this... why men are so good in technical fields and why they are better than women in those fields... oops, look at those 7 cents go...

[Spectral]

I'm sorry but that's BS. Teaching, nursing, social work, and child care are critical to society's function and are consistently monetarily undervalued.

https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/g...graduation.pdf I linked this on these forums awhile ago, before discussion of gender topics was banned (speaking of which, not sure why this thread is still open).

I do not see any plausible argument that teaching, nursing, social work, and child care are consistently monetarily undervalued. In the case of teaching and nursing, they both have artificially restricted labor supplies that inflate labor cost relative to what a market would drive. In the case of social work and child care, these simply aren't high skill, difficult jobs. Yes, it's important that someone do it, but in the same sense that public sanitation is critical to a functional society - that doesn't mean that it's going to command high pay.

I generally find the idea of professions being monetarily undervalued to be pretty incoherent. There isn't some arbiter of value that's setting the labor price, it's a result of the supply and demand for the type of labor. Take, for example, scientists - that's a high skill, high added value profession that nonetheless commands lowish wages. Why? Not because someone decided that science just isn't worth much, but because a lot of smart people are willing to do it without very much compensation. Sure, in some abstract sense you could argue that scientists (or teachers, or nurses, or other "good" professions) deserve more, but wages aren't about some sort of cosmic justice.

That women tend to pick professions that don't command as high of salaries says... well, something. But it doesn't say that there's a valid basis to demand the implementation of government force to level wages between professions that don't command the same pay.

- - - Updated - - -

The study is adjusted for degree, major, field and hours worked. Claiming BS doesn't make it true.

After doing so, what they find is ~7% (see Figure 10 on page 20). Notably, this doesn't mean that 7% must be attributable to discrimination, it means that the maximum possible amount that could be caused by discrimination is 7%. Attributing that 7% gap to discrimination would be to massively privilege the hypothesis while ignoring numerous possible explanations such as measurement error, a productivity gap, choices made based on family planning, small in-profession job differences that may not be accounted for in their data, preferences in the types of firms men and women work for, and so on.

Ultimately, when you have at least a dozen or so possible factors to consider for a 7% gap, the main takeaway should be that none of them probably explain much individual, including discrimination.

[THE Bigzoman]

Reminder: my contention in this thread is that the gender pay gap exists. I never said how large it is or speculated on the reasons for it.



So you agree with me. Now go tell Grimbold he is wrong:

You're either dishonest or incompetent here.

Whenever people discuss or mention the wage gap, 9 times out of time they're referring to the notion that women are paid less because of discrimination, not that women are just paid less.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry but that's BS. Teaching, nursing, social work, and child care are critical to society's function and are consistently monetarily undervalued.

https://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/g...graduation.pdf I linked this on these forums awhile ago, before discussion of gender topics was banned (speaking of which, not sure why this thread is still open).

And dishwashers are an very important piece to a restaurant.

That alone doesn't make it more valuable or just as valuable as the head chef.

[Illiterate]

I don't know many women with self-respect that would want everything payed for them.

EDIT

I may have misread all dates as throughout the relationship

Are you not a gay? You advertise it in every other post like some badge of honor. How would you know if you've never been with a female.

- - - Updated - - -

Reminder: my contention in this thread is that the gender pay gap exists. I never said how large it is or speculated on the reasons for it.

It's a myth, stop living in fantasy world. You and Justin from Canada are the only two people in the world that still believe it.

[Celista]

You're either dishonest or incompetent here.

Whenever people discuss or mention the wage gap, 9 times out of time they're referring to the notion that women are paid less because of discrimination, not that women are just paid less.

- - - Updated - - -



And dishwashers are an very important piece to a restaurant.

That alone doesn't make it more valuable or just as valuable as the head chef.

I do not see any plausible argument that teaching, nursing, social work, and child care are consistently monetarily undervalued. In the case of teaching and nursing, they both have artificially restricted labor supplies that inflate labor cost relative to what a market would drive. In the case of social work and child care, these simply aren't high skill, difficult jobs. Yes, it's important that someone do it, but in the same sense that public sanitation is critical to a functional society - that doesn't mean that it's going to command high pay.

I generally find the idea of professions being monetarily undervalued to be pretty incoherent. There isn't some arbiter of value that's setting the labor price, it's a result of the supply and demand for the type of labor. Take, for example, scientists - that's a high skill, high added value profession that nonetheless commands lowish wages. Why? Not because someone decided that science just isn't worth much, but because a lot of smart people are willing to do it without very much compensation. Sure, in some abstract sense you could argue that scientists (or teachers, or nurses, or other "good" professions) deserve more, but wages aren't about some sort of cosmic justice.

That women tend to pick professions that don't command as high of salaries says... well, something. But it doesn't say that there's a valid basis to demand the implementation of government force to level wages between professions that don't command the same pay.

- - - Updated - - -


After doing so, what they find is ~7% (see Figure 10 on page 20). Notably, this doesn't mean that 7% must be attributable to discrimination, it means that the maximum possible amount that could be caused by discrimination is 7%. Attributing that 7% gap to discrimination would be to massively privilege the hypothesis while ignoring numerous possible explanations such as measurement error, a productivity gap, choices made based on family planning, small in-profession job differences that may not be accounted for in their data, preferences in the types of firms men and women work for, and so on.

Ultimately, when you have at least a dozen or so possible factors to consider for a 7% gap, the main takeaway should be that none of them probably explain much individual, including discrimination.

That study is limited to one year after graduation and those numbers are adjusted for all reasonably measurable factors. The gap is shown to widen as women's careers progress.

I don't know why people here like to argue that sexism doesn't exist, because it clearly does. We had both men and women stating openly during the 2016 election cycle that HRC wouldn't have been a good president because she is a woman. That sort of attitude is still pervasive when women are being considered for certain roles, such as leadership/management positions. That doesn't mean that the majority of people are sexist nowadays, it just means that this sort of behavior still happens.

Also, there is lots of evidence that the professions listed are undervalued. We are falling behind in literacy/education rankings in comparison to other developed countries, and in some states teachers start off making $12 an hour. Infancy and early childhood are critical stages for human development, yet we consistently pay child care workers below a living wage. Mental health care professionals with graduate degrees see salaries as low as $12-17 an hour with license, and we wonder why we have a mass shooter problem. Social problems are complex, and all (most?) professions are important for society's function, but some professions are more critical for the well-being of a society in the long run.

When you underpay people in a particular profession, you end up with people who have the skillsets for those professions moving into other professions due to low wages, bringing down the quality of your workforce. This is the reality of work, you see the effect of low wages in any industry--lower satisfaction and job performance, higher turnover, higher overall costs due to said turnover.

[Elim Garak]

That study is limited to one year after graduation and those numbers are adjusted for all reasonably measurable factors. The gap is shown to widen as women's careers progress.

The study is incomplete and inconclusive.

I don't know why people here like to argue that sexism doesn't exist, because it clearly does.

What? No one argues that sexism doesn't exist. Don't move the goalposts. Sexism doesn't affect the "pay gap". It is actually illegal to sexually discriminate in the workplace. Saying that sexism causes pay gap is like saying "laws don't work, crime happens, and nobody does nothing about it" - it's idiotic.

[Eveningforest]

I don't know why people here like to argue that sexism doesn't exist, because it clearly does. We had both men and women stating openly during the 2016 election cycle that HRC wouldn't have been a good president because she is a woman. That sort of attitude is still pervasive when women are being considered for certain roles, such as leadership/management positions. That doesn't mean that the majority of people are sexist nowadays, it just means that this sort of behavior still happens.

This is why the unconscious bias, as the study itself points out, is most likely the biggest contributor to this phenomenon. It's an intuitive reasoning in a way but anyone honest with themselves is likely aware that it exists and, sadly, comes from both sexes. I could go on about women being prejudiced against other women and toxic femininity in general, but on a website where morons compare teachers and nurses to dishwashers, they couldn't pay me enough to even want to participate. Kudos for trying to argue with the MRA brigade though.

[Celista]

The study is incomplete and inconclusive.


What? No one argues that sexism doesn't exist. Don't move the goalposts. Sexism doesn't affect the "pay gap". It is actually illegal to sexually discriminate in the workplace. Saying that sexism causes pay gap is like saying "laws don't work, crime happens, and nobody does nothing about it" - it's idiotic.

Why would sexism not affect the pay gap? Lots of things are illegal in the workplace, that doesn't mean that this shit doesn't happen. Look at how many Fortune 500 CEOs are minorities or women. Hell, even gay CEOs. People discriminate.

Most workplaces discourage discussion of salaries (which should be illegal, in my opinion) and it's very difficult to prove that hiring/promotions/salaries are due to any sort of -ism because they're explained away by a number of other factors. Sometimes it is legitimate and sometimes it is not.

Also are you the one who said that men are more skilled at certain things? Lol. We can get into brain differences if you want but if anything women have the more beneficial skillset for workplaces, due to an innate ability to multitask better and better communication skills, which are particularly useful in management positions. Male advantage in things like spatial ability is beneficial for a limited amount of professions, most of them trades-based.

- - - Updated - - -

This is why the unconscious bias, as the study itself points out, is most likely the biggest contributor to this phenomenon. It's an intuitive reasoning in a way but anyone honest with themselves is likely aware that it exists and, sadly, comes from both sexes. I could go on about women being prejudiced against other women and toxic femininity in general, but on a website where morons compare teachers and nurses to dishwashers, they couldn't pay me enough to even want to participate. Kudos for trying to argue with the MRA brigade though.

Oh yeah, it's definitely women too. There were interviews with women who stated outright that women should be in the home caring for children and not be involved in politics.

I've also met women who are sexist against men and think it's OK to be that way for whatever reason. Sexism is a two way street.